~ politics for the people

‘Headworker’ Owen Smith ‘resembles domestic violence perpetrator’

Owen Smith launching his attack on misogyny. Twitter critics were quick to point out that he mentioned no concrete action at all, despite Jeremy Corbyn having been criticised for the same over his plan to end workplace discrimination.And then there was, “Why are you doing that stupid legs apart stance that the Tories do?” (To which the answer seems to be, because he is keen to join the Lynton Crosby school of style).

The language used by Owen Smith to describe Labour leadership opponent Jeremy Corbyn fits the known traits of perpetrators of domestic violence, according to a Vox Political reader who survived 10 years of abuse.

The revelation came on the day Mr Smith announced a “zero tolerance approach to misogyny”.

Critics on Twitter were quick to point out that this is the same man who told Leanne Wood she gets invited onto the BBC’s Question Timebecause she is a woman (and no, I don’t need to write “allegedly” – it was caught on camera).

But This Blog’s reader – who has asked not to be named – had a more serious comment to make.

She wrote:

“I see [Owen Smith has] now declared zero tolerance on misogyny .

“Oh really !

“As a survivor of 10 years of domestic violence the statement he made was not only disgusting… but is offensive to those still enduring domestic violence.

“I was referred to ARCH North Staffs to help me deal with the affects of the long term domestic violence and I can tell you it certainly opened my eyes doing the 12 week course.

“In my opinion Smiffy fits the personality of one of the known traits of perpetrators of domestic violence – ‘The Headworker’.

“This is a perpetrator that psychologically grinds the recipient down with constant put downs, ie ‘you’re no good’, ‘it’s all your fault’, ‘look what you’ve done now you need to do xyz or I will do it because you’re not good enough’.

Additional: Perfect examples (as far as I can tell) of the kind of language highlighted by This Blog’s reader appeared in an Independentarticle yesterday (Sunday).

In it, Owen Smith says of Jeremy Corbyn:

That his political principles are “just hot air” because there is no real prospect of him leading the Labour Party into power.

That Mr Corbyn was unelectable so there was “no point” to the Labour party at present.

That the party needed to “get up off its knees” and start looking like a “credible” opposition [by ditching Mr Corbyn for him, presumably].

You can see that this is exactly the language of domestic abuse to which my reader was referring. If you can’t, try converting the sentences from references to Mr Corbyn and make them refer to ‘you’. As in:

“You’re full of hot air.”

“You’ll never get where you want to be.”

“There’s no point to you.”

“You bring down everybody around you.”

See? How would you feel if somebody in your household was saying that about you all the time?

In the article, Mr Smith said:

“Without winning elections, without Labour being a serious party of government again, then all the principles are just hot air.” Perhaps he hasn’t realised that Labour has won plenty of elections under Mr Corbyn’s leadership. As for Labour not being a “serious party of government” – isn’t that due to interference from Mr Smith and his supporters?

I have done a little research to see if Mr Corbyn has said anything similarly unkind about Owen Smith – and drawn a blank. The best I could find – in a BBC article in which Mr Smith was quoted as saying Mr Corbyn is “not a leader” was the following:

“Let’s have some charity towards people – not malice. I don’t do malice.”

What a shame that Mr Smith does.

Note: Some readers have raised concerns about this article so it seems worthwhile to clarify that none of the information above is intended to induce the reader into thinking that Mr Smith may be a domestic abuser. There is no evidence to suggest that he is.

But his choice of language – especially with regard to Jeremy Corbyn – “raised the red flag”, in the words of This Blog’s source. Once those concerns had been brought to this writer’s attention, it would have been remiss of me not to put them before you.

Like this:

Related

Post navigation

The more he postures and acts like a jumped up little t**d, he is becoming increasingly less like a Leader than Angela Eagle. Who on earth devised the strategy which was designed to propel Smith into a credible candidate to go head to head with JC? Even some of the mutineers must be wondering by now just how this Mr Nobody Smith has jeopardised any chance of defeating JC.

Think what you just wrote, please.
This is an article about a man who uses bullying language to intimidate people – if you don’t believe the evidence in the article, read the piece about how he tried to intimidate me, and succeeded in intimidating somebody else.
And you want to accuse me of bullying him?
The evidence is there for all to see; could you at least try to consider it in a reasonable manner before falling back on a knee-jerk reaction?

I didn’t accuse you of bullying him. But some anti-corbyn people will likely accuse you of it.
There’s plenty to criticise about smith without having to get personal.
But then on the other hand, accusations are probably going to keep coming regardless…

“Just gives ammunition to those accusing Corbyn supporters of bullying.”
Sorry if I misconstrued but that’s how I read the comment.
And, forgive me, but Owen Smith has been getting personal – that is the point. The only way to address it is to point it out.

The fundamental issue over the question of Corbyn supporters and bullying, is that no evidence has been offered to back up all, and I repeat, all of the assertions made. However, when we go over the situation that the Labour party is in, then we see that the whole strategy of the anti- Corbyn forces is founded on the two principle s of bullying and dissemination of blatant lies.

bully bully bully yet hes allowed to get away with it strange nay thers another 172 bullies residing in this party yet corbyn holds out the olive branch he be better off beating them with it ouch untill that day

See my responses to other comments and try thinking about what’s being said.
Oh, and of course my source wants to maintain anonymity – this is a person who suffered domestic abuse for 10 long years, for crying out loud.
The last thing that person wants is the unwanted attention of Owen Smith and people like you, and if you read your comment again, even you should be able to understand the reason.

1- you spent 5 years whitewashing consensus on benefit cuts and protecting labour during that time. You used to use a technique called gaslighting when people knew it was Labour policy too. THAT is part of the profile of a domestic abuser. THis is a baseless smear designed to stick. Personality cults are very odd, if they are narcissistic personality cults, which Corbyn’s is, all accusations are admissions. Every last one. This is despicable but nothing more than we have come to expect from you. You abused people on benefits for knowing Labour policy and now employ abusive and lying techniques to copy Blair. Its a disgrace., This is a new low.

You’re saying I abused people on benefits?
I spent years trying to get the Tories to admit their system was killing people, and succeeded, and you say I abuse people on benefits.
Meanwhile the man you’re defending said Labour would not challenge the assessment system that’s causing the deaths of disabled people because he said it would upset the right-wing press.That, friend, is abusing people on benefits.
And your defence of it is the disgrace.

Is it? Are you suggesting his reference to domestic violence in 2010 wasn’t repulsive? That his comment to Leanne Wood wasn’t intended to belittle her? That he doesn’t use similar language when discussing Jeremy Corbyn? That his apology for that 2010 comment wasn’t insincere, in the light of his later behaviour?
Seriously?
Stroll on.

I am saying you spent five years attacking anyone who discussed that it was Labour policy too. While equality was rolled back for working class women. And now you are engaged in mimicking blairite media techniques and exploiting domestic abuse to debase political debate.

I have acknowledged that it was Labour policy. Are you simply making the assertion to get people thinking what you want?That would be a Tory technique!
Anyway, you need to go back and read the article again as I’ve added a little more to it. The Independent has obligingly published an article chock-full of the kind of language I think my reader meant.
After reading it, you might want to revise your position.

Gaslighting is about maintaining your own identity at the expense of other people. Blocking out reality and demanding they change their perception. Its why you did it to benefit claimants and why you arenow engaged in this behaviour. Emulation of the worst aspects of dishonest journalism, Worse than The Sun.

“In my opinion Mike Sivier fits the personality of one of the known traits of perpetrators of rape – ‘The Sly Accuser’.

This is a perpetrator that attacks the self-image of his victim with invented third-person smears on their character, i.e. ‘person X says you fit the profile of a domestic abuser’.

They use a constant stream of such degradation, always in the form of reported comments by a third party, never stated in the first person, in order to soften up their victim and reduce their resistance to their upcoming rape attempt.”

Note: it seems worthwhile to clarify that none of the information above is intended to induce the reader into thinking that Mike Sivier may be a domestic abuser. There is no evidence to suggest that he is.

But his choice of language – especially with regard to Owen Smith – “raised the red flag”, in the words of my source. Once those concerns had been brought to this writer’s attention, it would have been remiss of me not to put them before you.

I don’t blame you for coming up with this. I’ve said many times that, if a news story uses quotes from an anonymous source, they’re likely to be fake. Tit for tat, right?
My anonymous source isn’t fake, though – and she makes a perfectly valid point, as demonstrated with the Independent article.
For your claim to work, of course, you would need to show that the behaviour you claim to see is consistent across all the nearly-7,000 articles I’ve written.
That’ll be a job of work for you!
I’ll look forward to the result.

Your anonymous source is indeed fake, until such time as they out themselves in order to put their claims, and their reasoning, up for critical examination by experts in the field.

If they’re not willing to do that, then you’re just an ethics-free blogger smearing somebody based on the most pathetic fig leaf of an excuse that I’ve ever seen.

You’re so partisan that you don’t seem to realise what a serious allegation you’ve made based on no supporting evidence. Yes that’s right: the ramblings of an anonymous commenter, if he or she actually exists, do not constitute evidence to justify your smear.

Owen Smith should haul you into court and do you for defamation. I hope he gets your house, and the rest.

A good journalist always protects his source – so your first paragraph is out of order.
Your second paragraph is your opinion and, mean though it is, there’s nothing I can do about it.
Your third is curious. I’ve made an assertion and put up evidence to support it. If Owen Smith wants to do something about it, his best course is to stop using this kind of language.

I voted for Jeremy last time but I’m having serious doubts about doing so again because of this kind of tactic – the kind of hyperbolic smear the MSM are accused of (rightly). I have always agreed with Corbyn politically but I don’t like what his campaign has become and this type of smearing rather than discussion of serious political issues is not going to win people over, quite the reverse. Sorry.

This isn’t a hyperbolic smear. If you want one of those, look to Mr Smith’s campaign.
The reason it isn’t is that it is supported with evidence – something Mr Smith’s supporters lack.
Isn’t it interesting that you can tolerate his behaviour and that of his supporters – you’re perfectly fine with what his campaign has become – but, when somebody points out issues with him, you have to try to attack and accuse that person – usually of exactly the same behaviour you’re trying to defend!
No, I don’t accept your criticism.

If you can’t see why people are calling you out on this utterly banal bit of scribbling, then it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

Not from someone who, only recently told us:

That may seem a harsh verdict, especially with regard to Ms Debbonaire’s story which relies on her treatment for cancer – but the overarching strategy of the so-called Labour ‘coup’ has been manipulative from the start and I would not be surprised if the intention was to use her illness to play on people’s feelings.

You never once acknowledged the significance of political consesus and attacked people who knew what it meant. And as for ‘tory techniques’. I thought smear lie and a willingness to do anything for your political identity and to hurt anyone WAS a tory technique. Good luck to you Mike. I dont know how you sleep at night. delusions must help.

The reaction of your reader is rooted in her own undoubtedly awful experience, for which one should have compassion. When one has experienced trauma, it is not surprising that one experiences resonances and triggers outside the immediate situation. You are responsible for your choice to propagate her views. Domestic abuse happens, in the main, behind closed doors and is to do with one party manipulating and bullying the other, eroding their sense of self. It is, by its nature, often unwitnessed. Political debate, in the main, happens in the public sphere and is subject to critical scrutiny. Politics is a tough arena, and its proponents choose both whether or not they wish to engage in it, and how they want to play it. Judgements will be drawn by those observing it. Victims of domestic violence do not have the luxury of that choice. You cannot disassociate yourself from the possible consequences of this blog by your glib disclaimer at the end of this article. Not all who come across this on social media will understand the difference between exhibiting traits that characterise a domestic abuser, and being one. Perhaps your conscience is clear on this point. That says something about your conscience.

This is probably a good time to let people know: Having just come back from taking Mrs Mike to a hospital appointment, I see my Twitter feed full of self-righteous (and ill-informed) indignation at this article – and also a large number of comments here. I think some nasty people have been attracted to this site but we’ll have to do our best to put up with them until they lose interest or realise they are batting for the wrong side.

Wow. Obviously the articles author has an agenda. There is a hell of a lot of conjecture, misquoting and out of context words here. All to twist a quite normal political discourse into something sinister.
It quite obviously WAS your intent to plant a negative seed in the mind of the reader. To hide the insinuation behind the words of a ‘reader’ is just to add ‘fucking cowardly’ to the list of traits that make you scum.
I don’t know much about Owen Smith and have no dog in this race, but this article amounts to character assassination at best, libellous voter manipulation at middle.
I would place money on the author showing many traits of one of the categories of abuser themselves.

No, I didn’t have an agenda. I’m no fan of Owen Smith, certainly, but I’m not going out of my way to attack him either.
I’m sure you won’t agree but I can’t help that.
Relentlessly attacking an opponent on a personal level is not “quite normal political discourse”.
There are no misquotes, and his words aren’t taken out of context.
My intention was to flag up the nature of Mr Smith’s words. Perhaps he did not realise what they resemble? Hopefully now he does. Hopefully he will alter course as a result (although I doubt it).
I’m not hiding anything behind the words of a ‘reader’. You write in that way, as though you don’t believe she exists, but I wouldn’t have written the article without her drawing my attention to the subject matter.
No, there is no character assassination; no there is no libel.
If I do show abusive traits, I wouldn’t rely on you to point them out.

It wasn’t so much criticism as me pointing out that the piece falls into the category of blogging/journalism/tweeting/memes putting people off voting for Corbyn (in my circle of friends at least – but looking at social media, I think also the wider world). The ‘evidence’ you cite (ie the view of a victim of domestic abuse who refers to Smith as Smiffy) isn’t evidence that would pass muster in the essays I mark nor a court of law. It’s even weaker than the ‘evidence’ that the Mail provided for Ralph Miliband being ‘the man who hated Britain’ – a smear that we were all, rightly, appalled by and which now seems subtle compared to your piece here. The clip of Owen Smith speaking to Leanne Wood certainly makes him look foolish but not a lot more can be gleaned from it as it’s in such an unnatural context and he is clearly nervous himself. I’m not a supporter of Smith. I know too little about him so far. I WAS a supporter of Corbyn. I’m being dissuaded from voting for Jeremy again because of these sorts of tactics. I don’t have an axe to grind or a point to ram home. I’m just telling you that this isn’t going to win anyone over to your side. You can think about that or just keep on keeping on 🙂

So do you think my reader should have just shut up and stayed quiet, and I should have done the same?
I can’t do that if someone raises a serious concern.
The evidence you’re discussing isn’t intended to be up to legal standard because nobody is being accused of anything – other than using language that is offensively similar to that of a DV abuser.
The solution is simple: Owen Smith needs to modify his comments.

May I politely suggest that it’s you who need to modify your comments Mike? Or, for your own sake, delete them. You are indeed accusing Smith of something: being the ‘kind of person’ who commits domestic violence. And I’m sorry about Mrs Mike and the hospital but it’s irrelevant to the backlash you’re experiencing. You’ve taken the time to post something inflammatory and downright nasty and now people are responding. You and others who post this kind of thing are driving people into the ‘arms’ of Owen Smith rather than turning them against him which is your intent. I despair at this kind of tactic. It is turning people off Corbyn and away from Labour. Can you not see the damage you are doing? Can you not play fair and talk about policy? Corbyn’s fans provide no end of criticism of dirty tricks by the PLP but this kind of slander reaches a new low. If you want to win people over, you need to be more of a Michelle Obama and less of a Donald Trump in your style of campaigning.

You ask me to discuss policy, and that’s fine – but may I remind you that there’s only one reason we have been discussing people in a personal way – because that is what Owen Smith chose to do?
Are his comments about Mr Corbyn’s ability to lead an election not baseless smears?
I repeat: There is no defamation in my piece. Mr Smith’s behaviour clearly marks him out.
Perhaps you should be writing that last sentence to Mr Smith?
Look at his behaviour over the past month or so. It’s psychological warfare! That is what you are trying to justify. It is abusive behaviour, designed to undermine Mr Corbyn’s confidence and public confidence in him, and it seems to me that my reader has correctly identified it.
I have yet to see a single scrap of solid evidence against the article’s argument. Nobody can explain why they think it is wrong.

You will bring all Corbyn supporters into disrepute. (I am not one, btw)

The bit where you make Smith’s insults to Corbyn (who is Leader of the Opposition and thus powerful) into insults v a powerless victim of domestic abuse…. well. It’s like The Sun psychoanalysing Tony Benn or something.

Wait a second… I make Smith’s insults to Corbyn into insults v a powerless victim of DV?
Where did I do that?
Can’t find it in the article. I think you’re reading more into this than there is.
I’m glad you agree that Smith has been insulting Corbyn. Do you think that is statesmanlike behaviour?

The vilest insinuations, cobbled together without responsibility, beneath contempt.

I too voted for JC last time, in hope of a fresh, far-sighted & unprejudiced restart to opposition & a practical desire for government.

What has developed under ivory-tower Corbyn, and the wranglers McDonnell, Milne, Schneider and the others is the very opposite of that: narrow-vision, narrow-minded, venom-dripping power jealousy with no thought to practical impact.

I think Labour benefits policy under Byrne and Reeves was poor, even allowing for Reeves being egregiously misreprented over that “tougher than IDS” story. I don’t think their timidity on the WCA (which I scored zero on twice, and overturned twice on appeal) even did them any electoral favours.

But I don’t think that means Smith’s a “bully” for saying you’d hear from his solicitor. It’s a huge leap from what he’s reported as saying to saying “it’s important for disabled people to continue to die” for Labour to win the election. The policy was to “rework”, under Kate Green, who had professional knowledge. It would be better to scrap and put GPs in charge, but mass carnage of disabled people doesn’t necessarily follow from reworking the WCA, to say the least.

Can’t you see the difference between this and reporting what he said? I can see why Smith was upset with you. That he didn’t sue doesn’t vindicate your story at all.

No it wasn’t a huge leap. Disabled people had been dying and are continuing to die under the current system.
Disability representatives wanted it scrapped and replaced with a system that understood the problems being faced by the claimant, and their needs, rather than trying to fit them into a tick-box assessment. This is all in the previous articles so you’ll have seen it.
Later that year I managed to force the government to publish disability-related death figures which went some way towards corroborating my comments.
By refusing to take a stand against the then-current system, and proposing something that – for all we knew – might be just a cosmetic retweaking, he was asking disabled people to do exactly as I said. In my opinion.

What would you have me do, when somebody with personal knowledge of such matters brings a case like this to me?
I can’t ignore it – the evidence is there in the public, clear for all to see, if they know what it is they’re looking at.
My reader wanted to ensure that people do know.

Unless you have conclusive proof that Smith himself is an abuser then you should take the article down.You can see the number comments here which fundamentally disagree with this tactic and if you had any common sense, you would not only delete this post but issue an unequivocal apology.

I honestly think that Corbyn’s supporters have taken leave of their senses and won’t rest until they’ve destroyed the Labour Party. And then, of course, blame everyone else for the outcome.

I don’t need conclusive proof that Mr Smith is an abuser – that’s not what the article says. You are misrepresenting it.
Now, why on Earth would you want to do that, I wonder?
Yes, there have been a number of commenters who disagree with the article having been published. Hundreds of times as many people have read it without comment.
Blaming other people for one’s actions is a tactic of the Labour rebels and Mr Smith, as you know perfectly well.

A red flag regarding this man’s character, I thought.
I mean, only last Tuesday he was complaining about abuse between members of the Labour Party – but he’s happy to use the language of the abuser himself.
And it is abusive language. For example: How would you like it if someone told you that you couldn’t do your job properly – when you knew many problems had been caused by him and his allies? As I understand it, that’s typical behaviour of the character type we’re discussing.

As an appreciative reader for some years now, Mike, I can clearly claim that your journalism has been second to none. Even on this occasion, you have raised valid points in my opinion, and I admire your need to share points another reader has made, and also to keep her anonymity. How can anyone know more than someone who has suffered such abuse over a long term?

You also added this proviso:
“none of the information above is intended to induce the reader into thinking that Mr Smith may be a domestic abuser. There is no evidence to suggest that he is.”

“I have yet to see a single scrap of solid evidence against the article’s argument. Nobody can explain why they think it is wrong.”. There is no need for evidence that it isn’t true. A negative cannot be proven. He isn’t a domestic abuser as far as we know. How do you suggest he proves that? As for why it’s wrong, among many other reasons, as previously mentioned, these kinds of remarks are putting people off voting for Corbyn and off the Labour Party as a whole. How do you think this looks to those outside the party, the floating voters? Labour is at 11% below the Tories in the polls at present. Do you think this kind of piece is going to increase the poll ratings?

You’re right – he isn’t a domestic abuser as far as we know.
He does, however, use the language of domestic abuse against Mr Corbyn.
That is what the article was saying.
That is what the article demonstrated.
That is why nobody can show that the article is wrong; the proof of what he was doing is right there in front of you.
You say the article is putting people off voting for Corbyn – can you even prove that? No. Owen Smith is haemorrhaging support.
As for Labour’s position in the polls – the party was level-pegging with the Conservatives before the leadership challenge began on June 26, so blame for the loss of support there clearly lies with those responsible for the attempted coup and the leadership election that has arisen from it – again, Owen Smith and those in the PLP who support him.
This article won’t make any demonstrable difference to the polls.
It is important, though, to point out behaviour like this wherever we find it.
Considering his record, does anybody in their right mind want a man like Owen Smith leading the Labour Party?

I as a former victim of domestic abuse recognise the point you are trying to make, but as a Corbyn supporter I feel it is unhelpful to tarnish Owen Smith in this way. This is the kind of tactic I would expect of Donald Trump; he has dragged politics into the gutter and made people think it is okay to put negative thoughts into peoples’ heads and then qualify it , but you cant unthink something so the danmage is done. Im sure Jeremy would not approve. Please take it down, as it does not represent him or us.

It’s not a tactic.
It’s not intended to represent anybody.
It is an observation, based on available fact.
I won’t be taking it down just because a reader doesn’t like it.
Besides, there is an increasing body of evidence to support the article’s point, that Mr Smith uses language in a very sinister way.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.